Most Bangkok residents expect violence to continue in capital, survey finds

[webfact]

Most residents expect violence to continue, survey finds
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- THE MAJORITY of respondents to a poll in Bangkok - taken before yesterday's grenade attack - thought the political situation would tend to become even more violent.

The poll surveyed 1,369 respondents in the capital on Friday and Saturday. It found the majority, about 82 per cent, thought the situation would turn more violent and challenge the law or result in calls for a coup, according to researchers at the Suan Dusit University.

About 16 per cent of respondents said they were not certain of the situation and the remaining 1.4 per cent did not think Friday's incident would be repeated.

The poll found that 71 per cent said they viewed the attack as too extreme and that Thais should not harm one another, while 17 per cent believed it was part of a political game and the remainder called for the immediate arrest of the bomb throwers.

Some 68 per cent viewed the attack as being carried out by a third party. Some 21 per cent believed politicians, 8 per cent said mafia and 3 per cent believed government or the PDRC itself were involved in the attack.

Based on the poll, 58 per cent of the respondents thought more |people would join the PDRC protests after the bomb attack, while 42 per cent thought fewer people would take part.

When asked about how to stop the violence, 68.5 per cent said all political factions should reconcile and jointly solve the problems. Some 17 per cent believed that tightening up security measures and personnel would help, while the rest asked the government and authorities, including police and soldiers, to stay |neutral and perform their duties accordingly.

When asked what message they would like to pass on to the government, 52 per cent said it should step back and listen to the people's voices.

In a message to the PDRC, 47 per cent said it should conduct its protests peacefully.

And 46 per cent called on the |military to stay neutral and not get involved in politics.


-- The Nation 2014-01-20

[Nowhereman60]

No doubt about it. More violence will come. Someone wants the Army involved.

[JRSoul]

It would seem that 82% of Bangkok residents surveyed have been here for 4 years or more.

And only 3% of them believe that the PDRC were involved in the attacks. Why is the percentage on TVF so much higher?

[poisonus]

3 per cent believed government or the PDRC itself were involved in the attack.

While about 90% of red shirt supporting farangs think it was the PDRC behind the attacks.

The same people who assume that Thais are uneducated and beneath their own lofty westernized intelligence level.

You couldn't make it up could you.

[noitom]

The Thai army is almost in a no win situation. If they step in, what will be their objective? To stop violence but let the protesters occupy government facilities and"shut" Bangkok down? How about areas in and outside Bangkok, what do they plan for strategic deployment in those areas? If their goal is to "stop" protests and keep the peace, clear the streets, and back to work, business as usual, then they are aligning with the caretaker government until the next election given that any Thaksin backed candidate would win, which is why the protesters won't agree to a new election.

If the army facilitates the election, it is a de facto signal and concession that they support the elected government which, in fact, they are not doing at the moment. The Thai army is providing as much security for Thai citizens in Bangkok as it does in the Thai south. And we all know about the great job that the Thai army does in the Thai south.

If their objective is to clear the way for protesters to "shut down" Bangkok, then it will not be viewed as anything except a military backed coup. If the Thai army seeks to stop violence, the key will be how they implement their "strategy" and what its perceptions are to the free world. Surely stepping in and securing the rights of protesters to "shut down" Bangkok can't be viewed by the press as a sane methodology. So the Thai army is in a pickle here.

The elected Thai government should have been more proactive in securing Thailand by cordoning off protest zones, by stationing police behind the cordoned off protest zones with shields, helmets, billy clubs and holstered weapons as they did in Greece and other protests/riots. The problem is that if violence had broken out, the Thai establishment controlled media would have blamed the sitting government and Thaksin.

52% say that the government should sit back and "listen" to the people. 68% said they should "jointly" reconcile and solve the problem Well what does this mean? Do Thai people actually understand what they are being asked? The government attempted to talk to Mr. Suthep and he was clear that he did not intend to compromise or negotiate. So that's a non-starter for security in Thailand. Thailand is in a pickle here. The people being surveyed don't seem to know what the questions are, and they certainly don't seem aware of how to get out of the pickle or why the cucumber turned in to a pickle.

Edited January 20, 2014 by noitom

[Deserted]

I read that many people in Bangkok think that it was some backpackers from Khao San Road that were behind the bombings.

[FangFerang]

It has become blood-tainted white noise here, and nationwide, and abroad.

None of us know, all of us are worried, and we want tpeace. No if people could start getting that it might end sooner than dreadfully later.

[Fryslan boppe]

" THE MAJORITY of respondents to a poll in Bangkok - taken before yesterday's grenade attack - thought the political situation would tend to become even more violent."

Explosions are not 'violence' and are not 'attacks'...When I think of violence, I think of attacks by opposing forces, or attacks by external, clearly defined entities...R'song with its' "Soldiers on Civilians and over 100 deaths"...That was an attack and was clearly violence...Explosions do not rise to that level until it can be proven they are sourced by forces clearly external to these protesters.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Fryslan boppe

[englishoak]

When asked about how to stop the violence, 68.5 per cent said all political factions should reconcile and jointly solve the problems

There you have it, small survey but the majority say stop being idiots and sit down to talk.

[tingtongteesood]

No doubt about it. More violence will come. Someone wants the Army involved.

That is in your opinion. Every day you make predictions there will be violence, why do you want it so much ? You enjoy seeing innocent people murdered or something ? The only ones who want the army involved are the government, if there is a coup then the red thugs come and riot again and PDRC knows that is good for nobody....

[tingtongteesood]

" THE MAJORITY of respondents to a poll in Bangkok - taken before yesterday's grenade attack - thought the political situation would tend to become even more violent."

Explosions are not 'violence' and are not 'attacks'...When I think of violence, I think of attacks by opposing forces, or attacks by external, clearly defined entities...R'song with its' "Soldiers on Civilians and over 100 deaths"...That was an attack and was clearly violence...Explosions do not rise to that level until it can be proven they are sourced by forces clearly external to these protesters.

Brainwashed red at it again. The total dead were 92, not over 100, and a lot of those were soldiers, innocent bystanders etc. and a lot of those were dead before the army were called in and a large number of those killed were killed by the red rioters. So stop believing the bullshit and do some reading that is not red biased and learn the facts before you come and embarrass yourself posting crap like this. And by the way any explosion any time any place is violence if it is clearly directed at people with intent to do damage.

Edited January 20, 2014 by tingtongteesood

[CIHUAHUA]

"Some 68 per cent viewed the attack as being carried out by a third party. Some 21 per cent believed politicians, 8 per cent said mafia and 3 per cent believed government or the PDRC itself were involved in the attack."

Who do they think the third party is? It must be those Farangs.

[Alwyn]

" THE MAJORITY of respondents to a poll in Bangkok - taken before yesterday's grenade attack - thought the political situation would tend to become even more violent."

Explosions are not 'violence' and are not 'attacks'...When I think of violence, I think of attacks by opposing forces, or attacks by external, clearly defined entities...R'song with its' "Soldiers on Civilians and over 100 deaths"...That was an attack and was clearly violence...Explosions do not rise to that level until it can be proven they are sourced by forces clearly external to these protesters.

Interesting pint of view. So when somebody sets of a bomb injuring 28 people or throws a grenade injuring or even killing people, tell me, if you think that's not an attack, what do you think it is?

[Alwyn]

"Some 68 per cent viewed the attack as being carried out by a third party. Some 21 per cent believed politicians, 8 per cent said mafia and 3 per cent believed government or the PDRC itself were involved in the attack."

Who do they think the third party is? It must be those Farangs.

A good guess would be Southern insurgents. They love bombing things especially government buildings, they kill for no apparent reason too.

[Halion]

The majority of the polls conducted in this country are so subjective that it renders them useless and the statistics gleamed from such then serve no real purpose. Bangkok is not the center of the universe and although it could be argued that it does represent the intellectual hub of the country it is also just as politically manipulated as the rest of this highly polarized nation.

[Fryslan boppe]

" THE MAJORITY of respondents to a poll in Bangkok - taken before yesterday's grenade attack - thought the political situation would tend to become even more violent."

Explosions are not 'violence' and are not 'attacks'...When I think of violence, I think of attacks by opposing forces, or attacks by external, clearly defined entities...R'song with its' "Soldiers on Civilians and over 100 deaths"...That was an attack and was clearly violence...Explosions do not rise to that level until it can be proven they are sourced by forces clearly external to these protesters.

Interesting pint of view. So when somebody sets of a bomb injuring 28 people or throws a grenade injuring or even killing people, tell me, if you think that's not an attack, what do you think it is?

"So when somebody sets of a bomb injuring 28 people or throws a grenade injuring or even killing people, tell me, if you think that's not an attack, what do you think it is?

If it is internally generated from within the protest or by those sympathetic to them, for the purpose of inducing mayhem to advance protester objectives, it is not an 'attack'..........Only protester interests are served by these explosions....Then when they try to blame those who oppose them, their motives become very clear....An attempted escalation of chaos for political purposes is also not an attack...To be considered an attack, evidence would need to be produced that these explosions were sourced from their political opposites...In this case, the political opposites of these protesters, or the electoral majority whose votes they want to nullify, know better than to antagonize these people...Their chance will come on Feb. 2nd.

[Ulic]

No sh_t Sherlock. I hope the survey asked some questions that they really had questions about. This is not

Bangkokians? first rodeo. This is just the middle of act 1.

[Alwyn]

" THE MAJORITY of respondents to a poll in Bangkok - taken before yesterday's grenade attack - thought the political situation would tend to become even more violent."

Explosions are not 'violence' and are not 'attacks'...When I think of violence, I think of attacks by opposing forces, or attacks by external, clearly defined entities...R'song with its' "Soldiers on Civilians and over 100 deaths"...That was an attack and was clearly violence...Explosions do not rise to that level until it can be proven they are sourced by forces clearly external to these protesters.

Interesting pint of view. So when somebody sets of a bomb injuring 28 people or throws a grenade injuring or even killing people, tell me, if you think that's not an attack, what do you think it is?

"So when somebody sets of a bomb injuring 28 people or throws a grenade injuring or even killing people, tell me, if you think that's not an attack, what do you think it is?

If it is internally generated from within the protest or by those sympathetic to them, for the purpose of inducing mayhem to advance protester objectives, it is not an 'attack'..........Only protester interests are served by these explosions....Then when they try to blame those who oppose them, their motives become very clear....An attempted escalation of chaos for political purposes is also not an attack...To be considered an attack, evidence would need to be produced that these explosions were sourced from their political opposites...In this case, the political opposites of these protesters, or the electoral majority whose votes they want to nullify, know better than to antagonize these people...Their chance will come on Feb. 2nd.

So by your thought process if I punch my wife it is not an attack as she is internal or on my side? Try that one in court. If the protesters are responsible for the bombs it is still an attack, they are attacking their own people to get sympathy or whatever reason they do/did it (if they did it of course). You talk abuot levels of violence required fo "it" to be an attack in your first post. What is the level of violence or death for a bombing to be qualified as an attack? If 2 people die it's not an attack? If 100 die it is an attack? If a dog bites my daughter but doesn't break the skin when it bites it's not an attack but if there's blood is in attack? You're mad.

I agree that the people should have the chance to show how they feel on Feb 2nd though. Otherwise, you're mad.